[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 129 (Thursday, September 23, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H6979-H6985]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Critz). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the privilege to be 
recognized to address you here on the floor of the United States House 
of Representatives, this formally most deliberative body that has such 
a long and deep tradition that goes back two centuries and a generation 
or more.
  And here in these Chambers and the Chambers that have preceded these 
across the capital throughout the years have come the discussions and 
deliberations that have helped direct the destiny of America. Times of 
wars have been declared here. And there have been many State of the 
Union addresses delivered and heads of state that have come here to 
stand here at the rostrum and tell America, to the United States House 
of Representatives--accompanied often by the United States Senate and 
the Cabinet members and the Supreme Court, representatives from the 
Pentagon and others--to address the destiny of America and help direct 
our destiny.
  And it has been true that the voices of America have been heard in 
these Chambers over and over again throughout the generations. And it's 
what it was designed to do by the wisdom of our Founding Fathers. Our 
Founding Fathers understood--and I believe that God put them to work on 
our behalf--our rights come from Him. We know. And it is a matter of 
fact that's clearly delineated in our Declaration of Independence. It's 
been carried out by many of the words of the leaders that we have had 
that have emerged over the years, over the centuries, and over the 
generations.
  Our rights that come from God, debated here in the United States 
House of Representatives, in this American destiny which is the product 
of His Providence and the product of the collective judgment of the 
American people and the vision and the wisdom of this Republic. The 
Constitution guarantees us not a democracy but a republican form of 
government. That means a government that's established by 
representatives of the people. And those of us here that are the 
products of the elections that have the privilege to represent the 435 
congressional districts in America, we aren't the products of a 
democracy. We're the products of the votes by the citizens of America 
that direct us to carry out our duty as representatives in a republic.
  That means that we owe our constituents our best efforts and our best 
judgment.
  And part of that best judgment is to spend a lot of time back in our 
districts listening to our constituents, carrying out our arguments, 
using them as a sounding board because they're busy in real lives. 
They're busy going to work every day, raising their families, living 
the American dream in many cases. And they have asked us, directed us, 
hired us, and we've asked for the privilege to represent them here with 
our best judgment, here in the center of the capital of the greatest 
Nation on Earth, the unchallenged greatest Nation in the world, the 
United States of America.
  You hear this magnet of Washington, D.C., which is the center for 
information that comes in the world, and it's available to us. Each of 
our offices is a magnet for information. And through our office comes 
the wisdom of our constituents and the wisdom of America. It's our job 
to hear the pleas of the people and understand the arguments that they 
make, and evaluate them, the empirical data, evaluate the urgency that 
they deliver it to us with, and sort out the highest priorities and 
bring those priorities into this body.
  And we're also here gathering data from around the world and from 
around the country that comes directly into our office, and we're to 
evaluate all of that and bring out of it a rational, prioritized 
solution for the destiny and the direction of America. That's the 
vision and the wisdom of this constitutional Republic known as the 
United States of America. The vision and the wisdom.
  And I note that in Texas when they went through the effort to 
establish the textbooks that would be delivered and often go all the 
way across America, they made sure that they changed the language in 
the books so that it is clear that the students in Texas know, and soon 
it will be clear that the students all across America know, that this 
is a constitutional republic.
  So here we are, Mr. Speaker, on the floor of the United States House 
of Representatives, a place where we're to gather and bring to this 
floor the wisdom of America, coming out of the mouths of 435 Members of 
the United States House of Representatives. And that, brought up to and 
compared to the wisdom that's collected out of the 50 States from the 
100 Senators, from that's to come the policy of the United States of 
America over to the desk of the President, where he has the opportunity 
to sign and ratify or veto the legislation that we send to him.

                              {time}  2050

  And here we are today with a Congress that's dysfunctional, Mr. 
Speaker, a Congress that over 200 years of tradition and history and 
practice has provided for open rules that allowed for any Member of 
Congress to bring an amendment to an appropriations bill. Maybe even at 
the last minute. Maybe an amendment that was written not on a piece of 
parchment--that was a little bit before my time anyway, but possibly it 
could have been. Could have been written on a napkin. Could have been 
written on a place mat. It could have been produced on a computer in an 
office or typed out now on a BlackBerry and sent down here. But 
introduced to the Clerk of the House as an amendment even at the last 
minute. And any Member could, under those circumstances of an 
appropriations bill, bring that amendment up, require a debate and 
force a vote on the subject matter that was before this Chamber.
  That practice had taken place for over 200 years, Mr. Speaker, and 
now it's gone. It's been taken away by Speaker Pelosi. The first year 
that she held the gavel of the Speakership we still had the semblance 
of an open rule that went on for about half of that appropriations 
cycle, and then it was shut down. No more open rules to appropriations 
bills. Shut down. During that period of time, my staff advises me that 
I was successful in passing more amendments than anybody else in the 
United States Congress. It wasn't my goal to rack up more amendments, 
but it was my goal to make sure that my constituents were heard.
  And we brought those amendments to the floor in 2007, many of them 
successfully. But in the aftermath of that abbreviated appropriations 
season, what we saw happen was a change in the rules that restricted 
Members from bringing amendments and eventually became the de facto 
closed rule system that shut down and shut off the input that came from 
all of these Members of Congress, who had been out reaching out and 
gathering information and becoming the repository for the collective 
wisdom of their congressional districts. Added to that their judgment, 
their research, their analysis, all of that shut down and shut off by 
order of the Speaker of the House.
  No more amendments on appropriations bills unless the Rules Committee 
up there in the hole in the wall committee where very seldom does any 
press go and very rarely is there a television camera in there. And 
they meet often in the middle of the night. And they write a rule such 
as a rule that deems a bill to have passed. It's pretty infamous that 
the chair of the Rules Committee, Louise Slaughter, advocated that they 
not bring ObamaCare to the floor of the House for a debate and a vote, 
just simply deem it as passed. Deem a bill as passed.
  Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, how the Founding Fathers would shudder 
at the thought that they could create this great deliberative body and 
this constitutional Republic that could be reduced down into the chair 
of the Rules

[[Page H6980]]

Committee advocating that they simply deem that a bill is passed rather 
than debate it, put it up for amendments, and allow the collective 
wisdom of the United States of America, as processed through the voices 
of the Representatives, to work their will so that we can produce a 
policy that's good for this country?
  They set up the right debate structure, they set up the right 
process, and it's been usurped by this Speaker to the point where even 
it's a closed rule on appropriations now. Where one can't even begin to 
offer an amendment. Where I went up to the Rules Committee to--you are 
supposed to go up there and beg them to allow you to make an argument 
or a debate. I have never done that. I can't bring myself to beg the 
Rules Committee.
  But, nonetheless, at 1:30 in the morning on ObamaCare, I had 13 
amendments up before the ObamaCare bill was to come to the floor the 
next day, and I waited a long time in line for an opportunity to make 
my case for those 13 amendments. And the Rules Committee, one of the 
senior members had the audacity to lecture me for wasting staff time to 
write the amendments and apparently for wasting trees to print them up 
in paper. Because whatever ideas might come from a Member of the House 
of Representatives, I should have known--and he told me I should have 
known--that the Speaker has decided that none of my amendments will be 
considered, therefore why did I waste the time. Why did I waste the 
paper to introduce them into the Record? That's the kind of thing they 
can get away with when they are up there in the hole in the wall, the 
Rules Committee up there in the corner, unaccountable to the press, not 
on television, no one reviewing them outside of this body.
  And I can come down here and tell you that, Mr. Speaker, and a few 
people will hear it, and a lot less will be outraged; but even that 
intolerable circumstance is even worse than that because of the no open 
rules on appropriations has now been reduced to for this year no 
appropriations bills and no budget.

  So when the President proposes his spending plan, I guess you could 
call it a budget--we don't accept the President's budget. This is the 
House of Representatives. The Constitution requires that all spending 
bills start here. They don't start in the White House. The White House 
makes a recommendation, and it's our job to process it through the 
Budget Committee and produce the document that is the collective wisdom 
for supposedly the entire United States House of Representatives that 
sets the spending limits for the appropriations process. A budget that 
says don't outspend your budget, and you can spend it in these 
categories that are laid out by the Budget Committee. And that's the 
fiscal restraint.
  No budget bill in this Congress; no appropriations bills in this 
Congress. So we no longer need the rule that says you don't get to 
offer an amendment on them because there are no bills to amend.
  Mr. Speaker, we're at the point where this United States Government 
is being run by the iron fist of the Speaker hanging onto the gavel, 
dictating to 435 Members what she will do. And we're no longer 
accessing the collective wisdom of 306 million Americans. We're just 
accessing the collective wisdom of the Speaker's staff and whoever else 
can penetrate through that circle as part of that staff.
  And how can we believe that the equivalent of a dictatorship can run 
this country as well as the collective wisdom of the American people? 
Our Founding Fathers saw the wisdom. They set up the constitutional 
Republic so we could gather all the wisdom of the American people and 
sort the good ideas from the bad, the wheat from the chaff, and bring 
the highest priorities to the top throughout the system of representing 
each district and coming in here to introduce legislation, bring it 
through the hearing process, the subcommittee and the committee 
process, and to the floor of the House.
  Where, then, when a product is produced by the wisdom of the entire 
House, it can go down to the Senate, where they can work their will. 
And if they have some better, some sage, ideas, go ahead and fix it a 
little bit and send it back to us. And if they are good ideas, we'll 
ratify it, and we'll send it to the President. That's how it's supposed 
to work, Mr. Speaker. It is not working that way.
  The system, the process has been shut down. Democrats and Republicans 
should be outraged at what's happening to America because the wisdom of 
America is being locked out of the process here in the United States 
Congress.
  And we watched, and a number of us vigorously opposed what some 
declared to be the passage of ObamaCare. ObamaCare, the President's 
signature piece of legislation, rejected by the American people, who 
under the constitutional guidelines came here to the Capitol building 
on at least two occasions, and I would argue several more, by the tens 
of thousands to petition the government for redress of grievances and 
to argue don't take our liberty away.
  The people in the United States want to be able to buy the health 
insurance policy of their choice. They want to be able to take care of 
their own personal responsibility. They don't want to have the Federal 
Government cancel every health insurance policy in America, which they 
will do under ObamaCare. And they don't want the terms of their health 
care dictated by the Federal Government. They want to be able to buy a 
catastrophic health insurance policy with low premiums and high 
deductible. They want to be able to couple that with an HSA and grow 
that into a retirement fund once they've done a good job of managing 
their life's health. They want to be able to shop for a policy of 
insurance across State lines so they can look for cheaper premiums and 
fewer mandates.
  They don't want Federal mandates on their health insurance. None. And 
they surely don't want an expansion of Federal mandates on health 
insurance, whether it's brought to them by Democrats or Republicans. No 
Federal mandates on insurance. Let people vote with their feet. Let 
them buy across State lines. Repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act, which is 
the Federal statute that allows the States to establish monopolies for 
health insurance companies within those States. Let people break out of 
those chains.
  But ObamaCare came at us and was passed here off the floor of the 
House of Representatives when it did not have the majority support of 
the 435 Members that were here. And, Mr. Speaker, you might ask how did 
it pass then? How did it pass here barely, by a small little margin of 
votes if it didn't have the support of the majority of the House?

                              {time}  2100

  And the answer to that is, well, there had to be a couple of backroom 
deals made that had to be announced to the press so that they could at 
least make the excuses that they made, but they didn't have the votes 
to pass ObamaCare as it was. That bill that turned into almost 2,500 
pages of legislation could not have passed the House if it weren't for 
two promises. One of them was that there would be a reconciliation 
package that would come out of the Senate that would come here to be 
voted on within so many days of the passage of ObamaCare, and another 
one was the President promising to Bart Stupak and others, the ``Stupak 
dozen,'' that he would issue an Executive order that would fix the 
problems in the legislation that were created by the language of Ben 
Nelson, the Senator from Nebraska.
  So in that day, under that scenario--think of this--they could not 
produce 218 votes to pass ObamaCare unless there was a solemn oath that 
convinced the people that were going to vote for ObamaCare, that were 
elected to vote for ObamaCare, that the Senate would pass a 
reconciliation package that made a number of other changes and that the 
President would sign an Executive order that would amend the Ben Nelson 
Federal funding for abortion language.
  Think of this: How naive would you have to be? How far would you have 
to stick your head into the sand, Mr. Speaker, to believe, first, the 
language that came out of the Senate in the reconciliation did happen, 
but to believe that the President of the United States could sign an 
Executive order that would amend the law that was passed by the House 
of Representatives and the United States Senate? That is an 
unconstitutional concept to its very core.

[[Page H6981]]

  Congress has the legislative authority, not the President. The 
President's responsibility is to faithfully ensure and take care that 
the laws are enforced and the policy that the Congress directs is 
carried out. That's what needs to happen. That's the constitutional 
framework. The President doesn't have the authority to sign an 
Executive order that amends the language that has been approved by a 
majority vote in the House and a majority vote in the Senate. But a 
number of people over on this side of the aisle cast their vote for 
ObamaCare--about a dozen--on the promise that President Obama would 
sign an Executive order that would alter the legislative language and 
its effect when it came to Federal funding for abortion. That is what I 
and many others would call the tiniest little fig leaf for people who 
wanted to vote for the bill in the first place but said they took a 
stand on principle and they wanted to find a way out from underneath 
that. So they hid behind this tiny little fig leaf called the 
President's Executive order. But the votes weren't there to pass 
ObamaCare on that day without it and without the promise that the 
Senate would pass legislation that would change the language that was 
being voted on in the House.
  Think of it; the chair of the Rules Committee just simply wanted to 
deem that ObamaCare passed and not have a vote, deem it passed. And the 
promise, though, was that the Senate will pass some legislation to fix 
a mistake that you are about to make; and, by the way, if you think 
that taxpayers shouldn't be compelled to fund abortions in the United 
States of America, the President will fix that with an Executive order. 
And we are here to believe that this is still the greatest deliberative 
body in the history of the world and that it's the collective wisdom of 
America? I say not. I think not, Mr. Speaker.
  This system, this process has so devolved downward that it no longer 
functions as the Congress was envisioned to function. We now must 
alter, abolish, and change the direction that this Congress is going 
and put new people in place, people with gavels in their hands chairing 
committees, people that adhere to the Constitution; put in place the 
requirement that we introduce legislation that identifies the specific 
sections of the Constitution that grant the authority of this Congress 
to introduce and pass such legislation, that there's a constitutional 
foundation for all the legislation that we pass. And I believe there is 
a reasonable chance that that will happen and that the changes will 
take place in November and that there will be a major sea change in the 
seats in this Congress. A breath of new constitutionally and fiscally 
responsible vigor will come a-washing in over this Chamber.
  But in the meantime, we need to lay down the parameters and 
reestablish this covenant with the American public that we will 
function in a constitutional fashion, that we will balance the budget 
and start to pay down the national debt and be straight with the 
American people on how difficult that is. I want to see a balanced 
budget come to this floor that balances this budget in 1 year--not in 
20 years or 50 years or 10 or 9--1 year. And, yes, I expect that that 
first balanced budget offered that balances the budget in 1 year will 
be so painful that it's not going to pass. But we need to tell the 
American people what we have to do to balance this budget. Right now 
this Congress doesn't have the will to even tell America what it takes 
to balance the budget.

  And we must, as an early--and I will argue first--order of business, 
bring the repeal of ObamaCare to the floor, to pull ObamaCare out by 
the roots, lock, stock and barrel, root and branch, so there is not one 
vestige of ObamaCare left behind, Mr. Speaker, because ObamaCare is not 
the product of the American people. It's the product of legislative 
strong-armed activity that used the maneuvers of ``deemed to pass,'' 
the Senate promise of reconciliation, the President's Executive order, 
and the willful neglect on the part of Members of the House of 
Representatives.
  I yield to the gentleman from Texas so much time as he might consume.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate my friend from Iowa pointing out some of 
the problems with the ObamaCare bill and one of the things that just 
made it a dishonest bill from the beginning. We know this is language 
from the Constitution itself, Article I, section 7, ``all bills for 
raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but 
the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.''
  Well, if you go back and look at the legislative history of the 
ObamaCare bill, you find out that actually that was a bill that was to 
help veterans with tax credits, as I recall, for the first-time home 
purchase. It was a bill that originated out of the House because you've 
got to comply with Article I, section 7, all bills to raise revenue 
shall originate in the House of Representatives, and that bill 
obviously had bunches of taxes in it, even though the President assured 
us over and over that it was not a tax itself. Certainly it raised 
revenue. And the Senate knew that. And the President, although his 
attorney general now disagrees with him--certainly he didn't back at 
the time. The President said it's not a tax; it's not a tax. Well, now 
they are saying, well, maybe it is a tax.
  Regardless, there's revenue raised in the bill, so it should have had 
to have complied with Article I, section 7. But we all know that it was 
the Senate ObamaCare bill that came down here, and we had to vote for 
it without being able to amend it. The reason was it was a veterans' 
bill to assist first-time home purchasers who were veterans and so that 
the Senate could say, well, it did originate in the House.
  They took the bill for our veterans, to help our veterans, and they 
stripped out every blooming word, including the title, and substituted, 
therefore, ObamaCare. Nearly 3,000 pages were substituted for a bill 
that originated to help our veterans.
  Wow, what a juxtaposition that was. So anyway, that's why I say, of 
course, we know nobody in Congress is dishonest because the rules tell 
us that, but the bill was dishonest because it purported to be a bill 
to help veterans, but everything, including the title, was stripped out 
and substituted with that massive tax increase and the mandate upon all 
citizens that is just going to get worse and worse.

                              {time}  2110

  You know, we were told there would be no rationing in the President's 
health care bill. And it turns out, the Dr. Berwick, who was put in 
charge after it became law, said something along the lines of it is not 
a question of whether we are going to have rationing, it is when and if 
and who, or something like that. So there is going to be rationing. And 
what does that mean? It means seniors who rely on Medicare to live are 
going to be told, You know what, you are at the end of the line. You 
probably don't have that many years to live anyway, so under the 
President's wonderful ObamaCare program, you are not going to be able 
to be part of who gets some of this rationed care. That is the kind of 
thinking that we are talking about.
  And if I might address something that just came up today, of course 
the Republican leadership rolled out The Pledge, and we will talk about 
all of that some other time. The thing that I wanted to point out was 
that I saw the Democratic leadership on the news before I came over 
saying here these Republicans were talking about wanting to help small 
business, and then they had to rush in from a hardware store so they 
could vote against this wonderful small business bill.
  Well, I guess it is all in the eyes of the beholder whether that is 
beautiful or whether it is just abominable, but just to mention a few 
of the things that bill that was passed today to help small business--
supposedly, purportedly, actually according to title II, there will 
only be a fraction of small businesses that will qualify for any tax 
relief.
  It would allow for full exclusion of the gain from the alternative 
minimum tax, but it is only going to help a small fraction.
  And when you get over to title IV of this bill, and the bill was 
actually to provide funds for loans to small business owners so they 
could hopefully stay in business. But you really get to the heart over 
in title IV, where it says there would be $30 billion in a small 
business lending fund, and it would authorize the Treasury Secretary to

[[Page H6982]]

make capital investment in banks that have less than $10 billion in 
assets.
  Now, those sound like pleasantries, but the fact is when you are 
talking about the Treasury Secretary making capital investments, you're 
talking about people who have not had enough of buying up private 
business in America. We are talking about a government who tried to 
force TARP funds into the hands of small banks. The ones I knew 
wouldn't take it. They didn't want the Federal Government's grimy hands 
dripping down into their bank telling them what they could or couldn't 
do, and for the good reason that they were healthy before the 
government messed things up. They were doing fine until the government 
let the huge investment banks that give 4 to 1 to Democrats, let them 
run them amok, let them get in trouble, and nearly bring down our 
economic system.
  And because the investment banks got into trouble and our community 
banks for the most part were doing okay before Chicken Little Paulson 
ran around screaming the financial sky was falling, well now, this 
bill, purportedly for small business, is actually going to let the 
government get its grimy hands into ownership of smaller community 
banks that were doing fine until the Federal Government tried to mess 
up the economy.
  And also, the proposal does not require, this bill doesn't require 
institutions to lend to small businesses. It gives them incentives to 
lend, but it lets the government get their hands into the community 
banks.
  And so the bottom line: We know that come the first of the year, that 
there is going to be the largest tax increase in American history if we 
don't vote to stop it. We understand today Majority Leader Hoyer 
announced that there would be no vote on extending the current tax rate 
before the elections. And I am telling you, betting isn't legal in 
Texas, but if I were able to bet something, I would bet you that there 
are sure not going to be the current tax rates extended in a lame duck 
session. The only chance of having the current tax rates continue after 
January 1 is if the American public puts so much pressure on this 
leadership. And we have some Democratic friends across the aisle, and 
they really want to see the tax rates extended because they know it 
will cripple business. They have been hearing from people who say that, 
If you let my taxes go up, the biggest they have ever been up in my 
lifetime, you are in trouble. So there are assurances, don't worry 
about it. But I'm telling you, when the election occurs, the leverage 
is gone. People will be voted out of office who have been hurting small 
business, and there will be no pressure that can be brought to bear in 
a lame duck session to get the lame ducks to extend the same tax rates.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time just to pose a question to the 
gentleman from Texas, if you are suggesting that the people who are in 
the majority in this Congress know that there will be a punishment that 
will hurt businesses, and that would be why some of them would want to 
extend these Bush tax cuts or make them permanent, as I do and as you 
do, is that really it? Is it their conscience, or is it the political 
pressure that is coming to bear now before the election, and what will 
be the results and the aftermath? Is it in their heads and their hearts 
to keep the taxes up because they think government can spend the money 
better? And is it in their political survival instincts to try to 
posture themselves in straddling the fence until such time as there is 
an election so that they can continue to allow the tax cuts to expire 
at the end of the year?

  Mr. GOHMERT. Well, my friend from Iowa poses a wonderful question, 
and to make such a judgment call as to the motive, what was the intent 
here of those now who are saying, you know what, we are going to 
probably extend the current tax rates. As a judge for a decade, what 
you would do is you would look at the evidence. And the evidence in 
this situation is that for 3\1/2\ years our Democratic friends across 
the aisle have had the majority, and they have not lifted a finger to 
try to do anything about the massive tax increase that is going to 
hammer small business, hammer families.
  I don't know why anybody who considers themselves homosexual would 
want to get married because you are going to get hammered with a 
marriage penalty. Anybody who is married is going to get hammered with 
a marriage penalty because the Federal Government, and it has gone 
through administrations of both kinds, Republicans and Democrats, and 
it has not been finally eliminated, as it should have been, but married 
people will get hammered. And small businesses will get hammered.
  So we figure it is only right now when there is a massive hue and 
cry, millions and millions of people have taken to the streets, have 
come to Washington, come to St. Louis, come from across the country to 
tea parties saying we demand tax relief, that now all of a sudden right 
before the election, all of a sudden there is the feeling, you know 
what, don't worry, we will deal with this tax increase after the 
election.
  Well, my friend, I believe it is time to worry because, and I do 
believe, I have talked to enough friends across the aisle, they know it 
is going to hurt business because they have talked to business people 
who have made it clear to them you are going to kill my business.
  The point about the small business bill today that just says volumes 
about the way this leadership looks at the American workers and 
business' money: They think it is theirs.
  So their idea is the best thing we can do for business is let your 
taxes go up higher than they have ever gone up at one time, let that 
happen January 1 and here is how we will help you. The bill we pass 
today will allow us to provide some of your money that we will invest 
in local banks so that we will be able to dictate policy to the banks 
because we will own part of them.

                              {time}  2120

  Then we'll get those banks to loan you your own money that we ripped 
from your hands, come January 1, with this huge, massive tax increase; 
but we're going to loan it back to you. That's how much this majority--
I won't say ``this majority''--I'll say this majority's leadership--
loves small business. We are going to pry the money away from your 
hands at the worst possible time in taxes. But good news: we're going 
to loan it back to you. Congratulations.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. In reclaiming my time here, Mr. Gohmert, I'm just 
thinking about how this works.
  The expiration of these Bush tax cuts has been marching towards us 
for a long time. We know, when we get into the silly season of 
politics, any decisions that are made in Congress are made to send a 
message to the voters and not necessarily to provide the best policy to 
the American people. Call me a cynic, but I think your pundits and your 
historians will recognize that Congress does things just prior to an 
election that aren't particularly rational unless you put them within 
the context of the lens of sending a message to the voters that you're 
really not as bad as they think you are, for example.
  So any of this decision could have been made with responsibility and 
foresight. It could have been made in any of the preceding months. It 
could have been something that was concluded in June or July, for 
example. We could have extended these tax cuts for 10 years, or we 
could have made them permanent, which is as I would have preferred; but 
it didn't happen.
  I take this back to 4 years ago, in 2006, when Democrats won the 
majority in this House of Representatives. Charlie Rangel, the esteemed 
former chair of the Ways and Means Committee, was the apparent person 
who would become the new chair, formally, on the third day of January 
of 2007. Charlie Rangel went on the talk shows all over America, and 
they began asking him: Which of the Bush tax cuts would you like to 
keep? Which of the Bush tax cuts would you be willing to see or like to 
see expire?
  I listened to a lot of that. I never heard a definitive answer from 
Charlie Rangel. In fact, it has been a long time since we've heard a 
definitive answer from Charlie Rangel. Yet, throughout that period of 
time, from November until February, the pundits were asking questions, 
and smart money investors were making decisions and were drawing a 
calculus on what they thought might happen to the potential extension 
of the Bush tax cuts.

[[Page H6983]]

  Smart money concluded almost 4 years ago that there would not be 
extensions of these Bush tax cuts. Then you saw, beginning in late 
January and early February of 2007, a dramatic drop-off in industrial 
investment because smart money knew that the cost of capital was going 
to go up and that the profit margin would go down. That, I believe, was 
one of the early indicators that started to drive our economy down. 
Where we sit today is watching these cuts that could have been extended 
and could have been made permanent in any month prior to now. Now we're 
down to the last week before the election, and we're pretty confident 
it is not going to happen.
  As bad as it is to see this large, huge, looming tax increase, the 
most immoral and diabolical of all is the death tax--the death tax that 
doesn't exist today. People who pass away in 2010 can pass the entire 
amounts of their estates on to the next generations without a tax 
penalty. George Steinbrenner, one of those examples, avoided the 
taxman. However poor the happenstance was of his being called home this 
year, the billionaire George Steinbrenner's family didn't have to pay 
an estate tax. However, at midnight on December 31, at the instant the 
ball drops in Times Square in New York, someone who passes away a 
second after that ball hits bottom will be looking at a new death tax 
that has a $1 million exemption, that starts at a 55 percent tax and 
goes up from there. That means that the family farm that might own two 
sections of land in Iowa will have to give up half of that land just to 
pay the taxman, and there is no relief in sight.
  It is the class envy component of this which concludes that, no 
matter how much you pay, no matter how many taxes you pay on the equity 
that you have, if you have paid the tax on it and have accrued the 
capital and the net asset value, we are going to tax you again after 
you're dead.
  I've taken calls in the past, and I think many Members of Congress 
have taken calls in the past from family members who have had someone 
of whom they were having to ask the question of whether they should put 
them on life support or whether they should take them off of life 
support. The question was predicated upon: Will there be a tax 
liability or won't there be associated with the life of a loved one?
  This Congress must resolve this issue because, if we march forward to 
December 31 at midnight, there will be thousands of Americans lying on 
death beds, with their families gathered around. Sometimes that 
terminally ill family member will be coherent and rational and will 
say, Do not pay this tax. Don't put me on life support. Unplug me from 
life support. I want to pass away in 2010 so you don't have to pay the 
taxes on everything that I've earned all my life and that I've already 
paid the taxes on.

  Those are the circumstances. This diabolical and cruel policy will 
put families in the position of having to ask the question of whether 
they should try to keep their family members alive longer, with the 
chance that they might have some weeks or months of fulfilling lives, 
or whether they should take them off of that life support. Worse yet, 
it will happen. The time will come. If we don't fix the death tax, it 
will happen that there will be family members who make decisions to 
unplug or to not plug in loved family members, even at their requests, 
because those family members are not expected to live past midnight on 
December 31. Then, at the stroke of midnight, if that person draws 
another breath, there is immediately a 55 percent tax levied against 
all but $1 million of his life's work and his life's savings. It is 
cruel, it is diabolical, and it should not ever happen in the United 
States of America.
  That was set up because that was the best deal that could be gotten, 
and there was a belief back in those years of 2001 and 2003 that this 
Congress would have a conscience, a conscience that would prohibit them 
from allowing us to go forward to December 31, which would put people 
in a position like that. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that, of all of 
these taxes, the death tax is the most cruel. It is the most egregious. 
It is the most diabolical. It is a sin to put people in this position, 
and this Congress is determined to go down that path because their 
class envy trumps their compassion for people who have to make 
decisions like that.
  The gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. GOHMERT. My friend from Iowa is so correct.
  I actually have one of my constituents who has got a lot of farmland 
in east Texas, and he told me a couple of years ago, You guys have got 
to do something about the death tax. He said, My kids are all grown. 
They're adults. They went and hired their own accountant, and they all 
talked to him. The accountant explained that, the way the law is set 
up, if I die before the end of 2010, there is no death tax at all. He 
said, you know, We're land rich and cash poor. We don't have a lot of 
cash. It's in land. The land keeps us going. We make money off of it; 
but if we have to pay the tax, we're going to have to mortgage the 
land, or we're going to have to sell the land. We can't keep it if I 
don't die in 2010.
  He said, Now, my kids are kind of smiling and kidding about it, but 
I'm starting to get a little nervous because they've said, You know, 
Dad, the accountant says, if you don't die before the end of the day on 
December 31 of 2010, we're going to lose 55 percent of our land. So 
we're kind of nervous about it, and we're kind of wanting to know where 
you're going to be during December in case we have to get with you.
  You know, he said, they're kind of kidding and kind of laughing, but 
I'm starting to get worried.
  I saw him just a few weeks ago. I asked, Are you still worried?
  He said, You haven't fixed the law. You bet I'm worried.
  Yes, there's a $1 million exemption, but it's still a 55 percent tax. 
It is outrageous.
  Now, my immediate family will probably never be affected at all by 
the death tax, but if you're a person of principle who believes the 
Founders had the right idea that socialism didn't work, it doesn't work 
and it won't ever work, then you have to know that the death tax is a 
Socialist notion that says you accumulated too much in your life, so 
we're going to take 55 percent away from you and give it to other 
people who didn't earn it.

                              {time}  2130

  Now, I've mentioned this before, but it is so important. I was 
watching a replay of the different news shows from about 11 p.m. to 3 
a.m. and I was hearing people talking about all the young people, all 
the students that wonder what's wrong with socialism. Well, I was 
exposed to what's wrong with socialism, why it doesn't work, in one 
little incident that occurred while I was an exchange student in the 
Soviet Union.
  We were out visiting a collective farm, a socialist farm in socialist 
Russia--actually, this is Ukraine--and it was about 20, 30 miles 
outside of Kiev. The farmers were sitting in the shade and the fields 
looked pitiful; I mean, any farmer in east Texas would have been 
embarrassed to have fields like that. And this is mid-morning. It's 
morning. It has still not gotten really hot yet. It's the time, if you 
work on a farm or ranch, you try to get your work done before that sun 
gets too hot, and they were all sitting in the shade laughing and 
cutting up. So I spoke a little Russian and I said, trying to be as 
nice as I could without insulting them, When do you work out in the 
field? And they all laughed. And one of them that kind of talked more 
than the rest said, I make the same number of rubles if I'm out there 
or if I'm here, so I'm here.
  Well, there it is. If you're going to pay somebody for work they 
don't do or you will pay them the same amount of money if they do work, 
most people aren't going to work, and the system always falls in on 
itself. The only way a free market system fails is when people start 
thinking, wouldn't socialism be a good idea? And they start moving 
toward people being paid not to work, and then it falls in on itself. 
As the old saying goes, back from the 1700s--Tytler, the author, was 
given credit, it may have been him, maybe not--but capitalism always 
fails and democracy fails when people find out they can vote themselves 
largesse from the Treasury. Then they always vote for the people that 
will give them the most

[[Page H6984]]

money and then the system fails for lack of fiscal responsibility. So 
that's what we're looking at right now.
  Let me also say that these same folks that are saying we want to help 
small business and we did so today and this is how we're helping, we're 
going to let your tax rates go up higher than they have ever gone up at 
one time come January 1, but the good news is, with all that massive 
amount of money we're going to pry from you, we are going to loan it 
back to you and have you pay us interest on it.
  I don't know how anybody could think they're helping the middle class 
when you look at the 10 percent tax bracket. Now, those aren't people 
that are making a lot of money that are paying 10 percent taxes right 
now, but come January 1, their tax will go up 50 percent. How in the 
world can somebody say, Oh, we care deeply about the middle class, so 
if you're paying a 10 percent tax because you're scraping and 
struggling to make ends meet, so we've got only a 10 percent tax on 
you, but we are going to let it go up 50 percent, you'll pay 15 percent 
come the first of the year; and also, if you're in the next to the 
lowest bracket paying 25 percent, your taxes are going to go up 3 
percent to 28; if you're in the 28 percent bracket, it's going to go up 
to 31; if you're in the 33 percent bracket, it will go to 36; and the 
35 percent bracket it will go to 39.6.
  But it doesn't stop there. The marriage penalty will return from the 
first dollar of income. The Child Tax Credit will be cut in half from 
$1,000 to $500. I mean, that's $500 immediately out of nobody's pocket 
but the very middle class that this group is saying they're so 
dedicated to helping. I hear from the middle class every day saying, 
Enough already. We don't need any more of your kind of help.
  The standard deduction will no longer be double for married couples 
relative to the single level. The dependent care tax credit will be 
cut. That's all middle class help that will go away. And then it will 
be higher taxes on people that are trying to save money and on people 
that are trying to invest money so they can elevate themselves. And 
what are we going to do? We're going to jump up the capital gains rate 
by 33 percent--15 percent will go to 20 percent.
  And then there are these other taxes like the tanning tax. It imposes 
a 10 percent excise tax on getting a tan from a tanning salon. And then 
there is the medicine cabinet tax, that Americans will no longer be 
able to use their health savings account or flexible spending account 
or health reimbursement pretax dollars to purchase nonprescription 
drugs. This is part of the deal that this administration cut with the 
big pharmaceuticals because they said, you know, you promised to give 
$80 billion, or whatever it is, but here's the deal we'll work out--not 
on C-SPAN like the President promised over and over, but in a private 
conversation they cut a deal with the big pharmaceutical companies.
  Don't worry about it. You give us $80 billion, you're going to make a 
lot more than that because we will make people with HSAs buy 
prescription drugs. So hayfever pills that I've taken since I was 8 
years old when hayfever season hits in east Texas I will no longer be 
able to get for $2.84 for 100. I'm going to have to buy a prescription 
drug. Well, guess who that helps?

  And then there is the brand name tax that will kick in. We've got 
just all kinds of tax problems that are going to kick in. The 
alternative minimum tax, the employer tax hikes are all going to hit 
come January 1, and it will be a disaster.
  And just so people understand, if you are single, you have a 10 
percent tax if you make less than $8,375. Well, good news for 
Americans. We're letting them know here tonight that this group cares 
so much about you for making less than $8,000 a year we're going to 
raise your taxes from 10 to 15 percent. Congratulations. And if you're 
married and you make less than $16,750 as a married couple, guess what? 
We love you so much, we're going to raise your taxes 50 percent as well 
from 10 to 15 percent. It's just incredible what we're doing to people.
  And people know back home--it's like Reagan used to talk about. 
There's nothing scarier than hearing the words ``I'm from the 
government, and I'm here to help you.'' These people across America 
don't need any more help like this. We're going to raise your taxes by 
50 percent if you're in the lowest income bracket, but don't worry. 
We're going to loan you money back, your own money back to you, and let 
you pay interest to the government.
  I yield back to my friend.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
  A couple of things I would add to that. I want to go back and cap off 
the estate tax argument and one of the other ways it applies.
  You said land rich and cash poor, and that happens all across this 
country. And some of that land is poor. When people say they are land 
rich, they're land rich with poor land even, but that's the expression. 
And there is a tradition that goes out; there are roots that go into 
the land. Those of us that have lived on the land and made a living out 
of it and look around at our neighborhoods and know that the 
generations that grow off and on of that land are committed to making a 
living out of it and seeking to establish a way that they can pass that 
land along to the next generation. It's a matter of tradition. It's a 
matter of pride. It's family lore. It's a distinction of having that 
chance. People came out across the prairie in a covered wagon and 
walked behind the oxen to live free or die. They put their stakes out 
there in the four corners of their 160 quarter section and homesteaded 
it.
  We have a lot of family farms in Iowa that go back 100 years, even 
150 years, and some of those are broken up by the estate tax that looms 
over the horizon. One of those that is at risk of being broken up right 
now is one that I actually came across last week, and I want to make a 
statement here for the Record tonight, Mr. Speaker. The representative 
of that farm is Landi McFarland, a mid-twenties young lady that is a 
sixth generation that has been raised on that land.

                              {time}  2140

  That land that's known as Hoover Angus Farm. And they run a pure Red 
Angus operation and the other things that go along to make that balance 
within that land that's down there in southern Iowa and those beautiful 
rolling, grass-covered green hills in that part of the State and that 
part of the country and the world. And as a sixth generation who lives 
and breathes to live on that land and carry out the dreams of her 
ancestors and her father and her grandfather and the people that went 
before her, wants nothing more than that chance for the next generation 
to live there and do the same thing and build on Hoover Angus Farm.
  And yet, they're looking at an estate tax that would wipe out half of 
that land that's been put together.
  And the cruel, cold heart of people that don't understand that, that 
never lived that life, that don't know about being land rich, even with 
poor land, and cash poor, and knowing that half of that land could be 
taken away just to satisfy Uncle Sam, do not begin to understand that 
when you put together an operation, sometimes it takes generations to 
pick a piece of ground here, a 40 here, an 80 there, a 160 here. And 
after a while you've got a unit, a land-based unit that's symbiotic, 
it's balanced. It produces the feed and the productivity and has the 
grain storage and the transportation links and the building network 
that allows for the whole unit at all to function as a unit.
  And if Uncle Sam steps in there and half of that has to go, a lot of 
times it will destroy more than half of the value. You can't just cut 
it in half. You can't just say, Well, here's your half acre, and here's 
Uncle Sam's half acre, and turn it into a checkerboard and think it 
functions again. It does not. It becomes dysfunctional. And the value 
of the unit diminishes. You can't split it.
  So you have to decide whether you can sell something off and maintain 
that unit or whether that unit becomes of less value and no longer 
functional and competitive, in which case it gets split up to other 
interests--perhaps sold at a discount because it's no longer a unit--
and the legacy of six generations of Hoover Angus and then Landi 
McFarland could end overnight if we don't fix this estate tax problem 
that we have.
  And another component that the American people need to think about is 
the chilling development in

[[Page H6985]]

ObamaCare. And it is this--and I have said, Mr. Speaker, a number of 
times right here from this same podium, that ObamaCare is the 
nationalization, and when I say ``nationalization,'' I mean coming 
under the ownership, management, or control of the Federal Government, 
ObamaCare is the nationalization of your skin, Americans, and 
everything inside of it. It's the Federal takeover of your skin and 
everything inside it. The second most sovereign thing that you have is 
your health. The first most sovereign thing you have is your soul.
  The Federal Government takeover, nationalization of your skin and 
everything inside it, and a 10 percent tax on the outside if you choose 
to walk into the tanning salon. A tax on the outside of your skin to 
fund ObamaCare. How outrageous can that be?
  And here's the milestone, Mr. Speaker, it's the first component of a 
national sales tax with all of the elements of the Federal income tax 
and all of the things that Mr. Gohmert has talked about and identified 
here that are expanding and poised to grow and increase dramatically.
  One of our fears has been that we would have a sales tax coupled with 
an income tax and all of these other series of taxes. The tanning tax 
is the very first Federal sales tax that's imposed on anybody that goes 
into a tanning salon.
  Now, I don't suggest that it's a tax on a lack of melanin in the 
skin--although some have suggested such a thing--but I will tell you 
flat out specifically that it is the first national sales tax on a 
product.
  And if the Federal Government can impose a national sales tax on a 
service, they can impose it on any sales or service whatsoever in the 
United States of America.
  And if we're to do that, we need to abolish the IRS, eliminate the 
Federal Tax Code, wipe it all out, and convert it all over into a 
consumption tax. Free us up from the burden of the IRS. That's what 
needs to happen, Mr. Speaker.
  But these are two points that I think are essential to make. When you 
watch family businesses where the tax has been paid on the equity in 
that business and watch when it passes to the next generation, if the 
Federal Government's got to step in and impose a tax on an estate 
that's already paid its taxes on its equity, it takes that family 
business, that family factory, that family farm, and it separates it in 
half, and like a lot of things, even the baby that Solomon spoke of, 
it's worth a lot less in two halves than in one whole.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your attention and your indulgence tonight, 
and I'm absolutely convinced that I have convinced you.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________